Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:56, 18 August 2011

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, Leave me a message.

Why POV?

Hello, could you please specify what you mean in saying that Mozart and scatology is POV? I'm fully aware that this topic is a very loaded one, and for this reason I've stuck very close to what scholarly reference sources say. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

Good grief, I really think you are going overboard in your work on Mozart and scatology. Could you please just calm down a bit, wait for a while, and then read the article and check the reference sources before editing further? I am an experienced WP editor and the article was sourced as carefully as I possibly could. In particular, if you read it before editing, you will see that Simkin published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and that he is not the only one to set forth the Tourette's syndrome hypothesis. I personally feel it is not a good hypothesis, but it is part of the literature on Mozart (see the cited articles on Tourette's syndrome) and readers want to know how professionals have assessed it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you've caught up now ... see the article talk. Simkin's views simply do not enjoy widespread or respected medical consensus, the article has multiple issues requiring cleanup, and is POV until other sources are included. And I am perfectly calm; I do work fast when I see an article that needs work, and I have long ago read everything there is to read on Mozart and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fat Man

At the moment, he's blocked but not banned, so he could actually log in and use his account to edit his talkpage. Editing my talkpage is technically socking, but I'm not given to making a fuss about people socking just to tell me something. I was never involved in the discussions about blocking/banning the Fat Man. Do you want to explain to me why he's not disruptive/whatever it was he's been blocked for, or point me to a good summary of why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... Elen, no he can't. See the "cannot edit own talkpage" in his block log? – iridescent 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I too tend to be more tolerant in people who "write stuff"; it was surprising to me, then, to discover that TFM's last 200 article contributions go all the way back to November 2008. The skew toward articles related to the Howard Stern Show may well be a hint as to his current priorities. Or not. But it's been a long time since TFM has really been in the "content contributor" category in any meaningful way. Perhaps this helps to explain the dissonance between those who have not known him for years and thus do not share the "content" memories with Sandy. Risker (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. Even the best of us can become jaded, no matter how much we believe in the idea of wikipedia rather than its current implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

EotR, it will take me some time to write the reply this deserves, so I'll get to it after I find the time to pr/ar FAC ... hopefully by today! Glad you asked ... what has happened here is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a disturbing Sign of the Times about the direction Wiki is heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I've been a bit curious about this as well, so thanks for taking the time to explain. Hope you're well, by the way, and surviving the holiday. Best, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever get the time to put together some info about TFM? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but I think about it every day (and feel guilty and negligent :) (If the conversation on Jimbo's talk jogged your memory, yes, I'm talking about The Fat Man in some of my references. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark

Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.

Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎

I offer a part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎. I had edited the article thinking that it already had 7 uses of {{cite journal}}, so increased use of citation templates was reasonable, whereas it actually only had one (I must have seen the count post- initial reformatting rather than pre-). I assume you'll now remove that existing cite journal too? I'll then see about manually re-adding the extra available DOI and PMC links, since it will be worthwhile to have them. However, to say cite templates are not used in the article is not exactly right when there seem to be about half a dozen uses of {{cite book}} also. Had there been strictly no citation templates in use I would not have picked up the article in the first place. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rj, I've been meaning to get back over there and fix any stragglers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:GLAM/ARKive

There are some interesting discussions going on at Misplaced Pages talk:GLAM/ARKive. I wish this had been done five years ago rather than now.....just for a change from DYK - see discussions on attribution of text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK mentality

Whilst I agree with you Sandy that many shoddy DYKs go through and that standards on the main page need to be improved I think you are being a little harsh with some of your comments. Its downright unfair of you to treat anybody who contributes to DYK like some retarded monkey who is incapable of writing articles. It would be like me (wrongly) assuming you had an incapacity to write your own articles because you are primarily a FA reviewer. Its wrong to paint everybody with the same brush and you are really hurting a lot of people's feelings, mainly those who are legit editors and DYK is merely the first step towards writing a GA. These people work very hard and regularly come up with the goods and for them to be told they are pathetic and worthless and a waste of time is the last thing they want to hear. Many of us share your desire to develop the best encyclopedia we possibly can. Yes, there are a number of editors who treat DYK like a game and all they seem to care about is another notch on the DYK board, but there are a number of editors who regularly produce decent and much needed content which has great potential. I personally am not in the slightest bit offended by what you have said as I know I regularly produce GAs and am not the typical DYK contributor. But it really does come down to WP:AGF. We need contributors expanding our stubs and to give them reason to do so as it is the important initial step towards something better. We can get them to raise the bar without putting them off entirely (which is happening at present). I have mentioned to Tony a monthly prize scheme which could motivate DYK contributors to produce better work and compete for best article of the month.

In regards to the main page, of course I fully agree that it should be representative of our best content and it is important to have a good look for the project and regular embarrassing articles do the opposite of this. However, the stats show that on average about 4.8 million people visit the main page daily, most DYKs get fewer than 2000 visitors and indeed even the daily FA rarely gets more than 50,000 views. That tells me that the vast majority of visitors to English wikipedia couldn't care less what is on the main page and merely use it as a search engine to find their desired article. Given that ratio I would consider the quality of the average article to be as important as any and that our readers would be more concerned with the quality (or lack of it) of the average article than what is on the main page. I agree with you we should stamp out plagiarism and shoddy/lack of sources sources/POV as none of them are acceptable, but I think you have been treating DYK and the main page in the last few weeks as the be all and end all of wikipedia and of extreme important, whereas page views would tell quite another story. Given that the majority ignore both DYK and DFA, they only have to look beneath the surface to see these issues in most articles so at best the main page is a cover. Making DYK completely exemplary will not change what is there for all to see beneath the surface. That said, I think only the very best DYKs or GA articles should replace the current system as I agree the main page should be representative of our best content, but I don't think the main page is quite as important as you seem to think in regards to our viewers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Its (sic) downright unfair of you to treat anybody who contributes to DYK like some retarded monkey who is incapable of writing articles.

   I haven't done that, although many DYKers have. Please, don't make hyperbolic statements here without some evidence in the form of diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

2. These people work very hard and regularly come up with the goods and for them to be told they are pathetic and worthless and a waste of time is the last thing they want to hear.

   Ditto: I haven't told anyone they are pathetic and worthless, but the DYK process certainly is. I don't much care if the denialists don't want to hear criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

3. I have mentioned to Tony a monthly prize scheme which could motivate DYK contributors to produce better work and compete for best article of the month.

   Groan, oh great-- another useless bauble for the reward culture. So, who is going to referee this latest contest? Considering a shortage of reviewers, why don't those folks simply watch for the daily DYK copyvio so I can move on ?

4. That tells me that the vast majority of visitors to English wikipedia couldn't care less what is on the main page and merely use it as a search engine to find their desired article.

   Interesting, but has nothing to do with my point, which is that DYK teaches new and old editors alike BAD editing, and never catches it, and never does anything to educate deficient editors in Misplaced Pages policy, and thousands of deficient stubs are created that are never cleaned up. It's a bit alarming that so few editors care about that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Never"? Really? "Thousands"? Really? DYKs are by definition not stubs. For once Blofeld has a point. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Never: AFAIK, yes. I have never gone to the mainpage to check DYK where I couldn't locate an offensive article within minutes. Thousands: undeniably. I know of two editors who between them created more than that, and that doesn't count all the undetected. Stubs, yes, frequently; I've found several that once the faulty content is removed consist of no more than two or three sentences. And I have never said that many very good editors don't go through DYK on their way to GA or FA; the concern is generally among those who never move beyond DYK and never learn that their editing is deficient, and no one cleans up after them.

What we have right now are a whole new crop of denialists at DYK who have forgotten (or never knew about) the entire ANI subthread from last October (courtesy of Rlevse), or who have engaged in same themselves so don't want anything to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So you don't know very far then; as you have said you usually only look at the product not the process. So not "thousands of deficient stubs", but "frequently ...several". Your over-strident tone in this is reducing the force of your arguments. Johnbod (talk)

as you have said you usually only look at the product not the process. Johnbod, it's contagious!! Knowledgeable, precise FA folk are getting sloppy !! Where have I said that? It's fashionable to put words in my mouthy lately :) I looked at the process last October, engaged at WT:DYK, got shot as the messenger, decided it was not the best use of my time, looked again this time and found nothing has changed, don't intend to waste my time digging through diffs on multiple complex pages that have no archives, am glad to see that Rjanag has started an archive process to solve that part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not digging through your diffs either, but your comments normally start with defective stuff that has made it through to the main page, and often ask basic questions about how it got there, which sometimes display considerable unfamiliarity with the basic review process (as with the one that Truthkeeper reviewed for example). That's not a good basis to start making claims about what the process "never" does. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If this boils down to TK making a mistake (?), Sandy becoming strident as a result, and now multiple retirements because of the ensuing firestorm, then it's time for me to close up shop here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? That you happened to be a reviewer, and that someone pushed a really bad alternate hook up the line that you had not reviewed, had nothing to do with my routine forays into DYK to look for the daily debacle. Why should any of this lead to you closing up shop? I would think you'd be glad that your foray over there highlighted how complex and unwieldy their processes are. Furthermore, given that it was subsequently revealed that many of them long knew of the deficiencies in that editor's writing, don't you feel somewhat taken advantage of? Several of them mentioned they wouldn' review his hooks, so it fell to the newbie/lamb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I feel very much taken advantage of. But my foray was the result of someone challenging me to find a DYK with copyvio, and what I've learned, painfully, is that people don't want to hear about plagiarism, want to shove it under the carpet, become defensive and even uncivil when it's mentioned. That it's an enormous problem has been clear to me since I saw the extent of the damage ILT caused, of which I've scrubbed only a fraction of one percent. That we need to deal with the problem is clear, but I don't want to have caused so much acrimony and finger pointing simply because of a single stupid review. Better for me to stick with content production and stay away from metadiscussions and all. That's all. A little upset about this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a faulty interpretation, Johnbod. Since last October, DYK had done nothing (prior to Rjanag's recent improvements) to improve archiving and complex, messy process. Since they hadn't done the minimum, there is no reason for any editor to have to trawl through multiple old diffs on multiple pages to figure out who reviewed a hook. At minimum, they should have had that accountability since the issues surfaced last October. Instead, they punted responsibility with QPQ reviewing. That I *won't* trawl through diffs in a faulty process doesn't mean I don't understand the process or *can't*-- it's their problem, and I shouldn't have to. Perhaps some of them want obscurity, so repeat offenders aren't easily identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As with most processes, the way to become familiar with how it works is to actually do it, not look at the end product and try to work backwards. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Analogy. If I want to criticize any activity I don't condone, I must first engage it? Prostitution, child abuse, socialism, eating contests, booger eating, here I come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • And we all know where that leads... multiple retirements... scrambling your password.. re-upping as SandyGeorgia2...  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You lost me there, Ling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • sorry, I was referring to myself. Hidden in my sig is User:Ling.Nut2.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• People at DYK are objecting to your incivility and abuse, not to the idea that plagiarism and copyvio are in general bad things. Yes, they are bad things, but detecting them is something one must learn to do. Tony1 has been (as usual) incredibly helpful in looking for ways to help people learn to do a better job on reviewing, including starting a centralized resource for people to find information on how to detect or remedy close paraphrasing. I imagine that you perceive your many ugly remarks about DYK editors to be a beneficial way to motivate people to do things you think they should already be doing. This is not a sensible method of teaching or motivating volunteers, and it violates Misplaced Pages core principles such as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Tony1 has done a much better job here than you have, by far, by far, by far, on serving the goals that you claim to want to be serving. Sharktopus 15:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And your pointed remarks at Sandy help.... how? if you don't like her, ignore her. Worked for me and my stepmother for a decade.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Sharktopus, maybe you should review the "core principles" that you are referring to, because unless you were trying to be pointy, some can see (parts of) your comment as quite ugly. Maybe, one might also question "the goals that you claim to want to be serving" after seeing you commenting here in the way in which you have. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Shark, if you come to my talk page alleging "incivility and abuse", you darn well better present diffs to back your own little view of the world. AFAIK, Tony created a template which won't address the problems. Rjanag on the other hand has done something that may improve accountability. That you don't seem concerned that to this day DYK continues to put copyvio on the mainpage really doesn't impress me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that standards have been way too low and crap should not get through onto the main page you know this , but there is a way to go about it without implying that every contributor at DYK is a complete imbecile and unworthy of having an account. Serial offenders with plagiarism and poor sources should of course be warned until they change. What you appear to miss Sandy is that we are all volunteers here and none of us have to bother with anything. We are a charity institution which relies heavily on the goodwill of people to freely donate their time and effort to developing something worthwhile. You treat wikipedia like some central government institution with a strict code and bureacratic structure and the utmost highest of standards. Would wikipedia be improved if it was a professional institution? Highly likely, yes. But we aren't and nobody is in a position (however respected or competent) to give orders to individuals and treat them as janitors at the lower end of the ladder in some fat cat company. We rely on editors developing content and this is very important as an initial step.

If you take away any "reward" system for editors then motivating them becomes much more difficult unless they are really infatuated with a subject that they will develop it at all costs. I don't see why rewarding editors who produce better content would be such a bad thing, in fact it might get those who previously produced bare minimum crappy DYKs into working on something more worthwhile. Who would decide article of the month? There are several editors at DYK who could do that. Some of them such as Yomagani are actually competent article reviewers although can't be expected to review and check every article. Given that we are all volunteers content development has to be fun for the individual. If it becomes a chore and extremely strict at DYK level then there is little incentive for an editor to bother developing a stub and spending time reviewing other articles thoroughly. You might think rewards are lousy but very few people actually produce goods for free. Nobody is obligated to edit here and it is remains a purely negative environment we'll lose people who matter. People may be rejoicing that people are leaving DYK, what they are failing to see is that editors like User:Khazar and User:Nvvchar have been invaluable at addressing systematic bias on here by covering parts of the world in the non-anglo countries even if they were not perfect writers. We need such editors to help improve wikipedia as a resource, even if they are not FA contributors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BLOFELD, THIS IS FOR YOU.

1. ... without implying that every contributor at DYK is a complete imbecile and unworthy of having an account. I warned you above (did you read?) about putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. If you do it again, I'll remove your post. If you come to my page to allege I'm doing X, provide a diff. Else, go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
2. What you appear to miss Sandy is that we are all volunteers here and none of us have to bother with anything. No, I don't miss that at all. What you appear to miss is that, if DYK can't clean up its act, it doesn't HAVE to be on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy I read somewhere you mentioned a bot for picking up DYK copyvios. That's a great idea, is anybody looking into it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting old. No, I didn't. I requested that DYKers come up with a template for notifying of copyvios, plagiarism, close paraphrasing etc since it is such a frequent issue at DYK. They may as well have a bot do it, since it happens in every queue, but I don't know how bots work and if that is doable. They DO need a template to notify the copyvio creator, the DYK reviewer, the DYK prep reviewer, the DYK admin who put the copyvio on the main page, DYK, Main page errors, and article talk of the offense, so that they don't continue and editors can learn from their mistakes. The template should link to the relevant policies and educational pages like the plagiarism dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that would be ideal. And when many were complaining about you on the DYK talk page with the "incivility" remarks I actually defended you given how frustrating it is that considerable effort is being put into DYK reform and at that stage little was happening. As for the main page, wasn't I the one who proposed to take DYK off the main page because I knew that such a needed raise in standards would likely kill the enthusiasm? Maybe we are best off scrapping DYK entirely and replacing with GAs but somebody somewhere is going to suffer over this, it can't be helped.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that EarwigBot (or the the Copyright Violation Detector toolserver page) and/or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, should be involved as a formal part of the DYK process - why are those tools not already used? It would make things a little easier for all involved if their involvement could help reduce the amount of copyvios. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they're helpful, but it only takes minutes to find issues, so I still don't get why people don't do it manually. See GA Dotty Cotton (by the same editor I found yesterday at DYK). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the too close paraphrasing issue you discovered in Dotty Cotton (which I've now rewritten), a closer look at that article shows that it's pretty dreadful in other places too. Take this from the lead for instance: "She assisted Nick in trying to kill her grandmother, Dot, by making her believe she was suffering form dementia and later trying to poision her". Can't even get the bloody spelling right. Interestingly the reviewer is the same editor who dragged me to AN/I a few days ago when I was very critical of an article on another soap character during its recent GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

oopsie, see what comes from waterskiing and wakeboarding while you're packing and unpacking boxes and moving !! You miss a few goodies at the Misplaced Pages-- sorry to flag one for you that involved an unpleasant prior experience that I missed. Anyway, the problem is that DYK is not educating these editors, and they are going on to create issues up the line. Now I shall go pack a dozen or so boxes so I can get on to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

PS, on that GAN ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't all bad then. I don't understand what the schools are teaching these days; I wouldn't have got away with spelling errors and copying even when I was in junior school. In fact we had regular lessons on what was called English comprehension, in which we were explicitly taught how to summarise large chunks of text in our own words. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In the US the schools are teaching very little, and the bare minimum of writing instruction, if any. International baccalaureate students do received writing instruction, but IB isn't widely available. I first learned to read and write in a language other than English (spoke English at home), and when we returned to the US I'd missed the lessons on English grammar; apparently it's only taught once and never revisited. Writing was never taught. This is the reason for my bad prose. But that was a number a years ago, and I know that the situation has deteriorated seriously. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it varies a lot. I challenged a U.S. middle school student to quote me the material from his offline source for a Misplaced Pages article, because I had serious doubts that the wording was really his own. He duly typed out the four paragraphs from the original source, which he'd correctly summarised into two sentences for the Misplaced Pages article. He also realised that I was checking for plagiarism, and was a little put out; "Yes of course I know what plagiarism is. Everything I write for school, my teacher breaks every single sentence into phrases and Googles them. I wouldn't get away with plagiarism round here." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I spotted Mavis Wilton in the DYK queue and intentionally ignored it. Would you have done the same here? Worse POV and prose quality than any of the DYKs you'll find in Indian and Pakistani town and village articles ..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question? Yes I would have deleted the material just as you did, but no, I wouldn't have spent any time working on the article beyond that, as I did with Mavis. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just felt guilty that's all removing somebody's hard work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FACs

Hi Sandy, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt/archive1 seems to be maturing nicely and I'd quite like to nominate my next project, Iranian Embassy siege. Would you mind if I nominated the latter while the FAC for the former is still open? There's no risk that I won't be able to respond to feedback on two simultaneous reviews. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead (I need to re-review my discussions with Karanacs to see who is pr/aring today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Karanacs is out 'til the 8th, so I guess that ends my bi-monthly foray into DYK abuse. Back to FAC !! I will try to get through tonight, if not, tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and far be it from me to tell you how to suck eggs, I think you speak much sense on DYK, but the regulars there might respond more positively if you try to work with them, rather than giving them the impression that it's you vs them. Anyway, thanks, I'll nominate the embassy siege a little later on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a thought worthy of contemplation, but I suspect some of them aren't going to pay attention no matter how the concerns are stated (not to mention that several of them are attributing things to me that they've come up with in their imagination, and several of them have behaved quite awfully). How 'bout this-- next time (as there will inevitably be a next time), I'll be saccharin-sweet and we'll see if it goes any differently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth a try, isn't it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if it were likely to make a difference. Which it won't. The reason that so many are getting upset at SandyG's remarks is because they know they're true but don't want to admit it. Sandy's attitude to GA was at one time perhaps rather similar; certainly she was very critical of certain aspects of the process. But rather than block our ears a number of us tried to address her concerns, not least by introducing a proper system of archiving and cleaning up or delisting all evidently non-compliant GAs. I see very little real effort from DYK to do anything similar, or even to drop the QPQ reviewing requiement, which was always going to be a disaster waiting in the wings. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BINGO :) GA corrected deficiencies, DYK has made negligible attempt, over many years or recurring issues, always with a new crop of offenders and deniers. PS, MF, I just found a non-compliant GA by the same editor identified at DYK yesterday (see above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sandy has repeatedly demanded actual instance of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in her interactions with editors who work on DYK ... here are just 4 samples from one day's comments http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Daily_DYK_scandal Sharktopus 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There's always one, whether faulty sources, plagiarism, or sensationalism, but y'all have exceeded even your own low standards …Have you all no shame, or simply no processes for assuring you don't trash the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • DYK can be as obtuse as you all want for as long as you want … No accountability, no transparency, no archives, no institutional memory, no decency wrt human beings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • the Shark character is the latest DYK apologist in a long stream of same SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No one is asking for perfect, but we don't need apologists for plagiarism, sensationalism, and BLP issues...I hold you and other experienced DYKers responsible for fixing them, not denying it or apologizing for it. Your process stinks; fix it. DYK deserves this negative attention SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Improving Misplaced Pages is a fine goal, and it's one that I also believe in. Sharktopus 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Try harder. First hint: there is always one. But I'll not need to refer to you as "the Shark character" anymore, since your username is now firmly entrenched in my memory, and I won't need to dig it up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I like to improve Misplaced Pages by doing what I think I'm good at, which is editing articles and helping other people to do the same. I assume that you are good at ferreting out mistakes in the work done by others, although according to your contribution history you haven't done a lick of work since July 28 on anything except trying to prove how entitled you are to enjoy abusing people at DYK. Sharktopus 17:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sharktopus, IIRC, someone above suggested you might lay off the attacks. Now would be a good time to start. Any further will be removed for your own protection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Now I know you're all going to think I'm daft, and you might be right, but if you guys (Sandy and Sharktopus in particular) take a step back and a deep breath, then try to work together rather than making things adversarial and personal, you might make more progress. Maybe there are those at DYK who will resist any efforts to change the way they do things, but Sandy, I think you might find more support (or at least less disagreement!) if you show the DYK folks that you want to help them rather than browbeat them. I'm sure you encountered resistance when it was GA in your crosshairs, but these days the process is hugely improved (it has its flaws, but so does any process), to the benefit of Misplaced Pages, and those who submitted crappy articles for review or conducted seriously sub-par reviews eventually became largely extinct. So will it be with DYK, but only (in my opinion, and I realise you and Malleus have been doing this for far longer than I, and that you're going to think I sound like a hippie or something ;)!) with the consent of mainstream DYK thought. If you succeed in forcing change but don't bring the mainstream of the DYK project with you, the change won't last, so better to aim for evolution, with the consent of DYK folks, rather than revolution without it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed. One of the problems with concensus is this. If there's ten people that reach a concensus that the sky is blue, there will still be one of them who decides to keep quiet and not commit themselves either way, and one who will keep screaming "no, no! it's green!" The screamer will attract most attention, and it then becomes too easy to start thinking that in fact all ten people are resistant to the idea, even though in fact there is a quiet concensus in favour of the idea. Of course, that 10% of loud resistance and 10% of quiet neutrality can still be quite effective in stopping or slowing change, but that's still not a reason to react by rushing around saying "hey you know these ten people, they just won't accept the sky is blue - they're in denial!" when, as far as concensus is concerned, quite the opposite is true. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sandy, I was not impressed with your comments and edit summaries at the DYK article I've been working on, Al Lerner (composer). Sure, the article needs work. It is, after all, a new article! It's not like it's been nominated for GA or anything. But your edit summaries and the comments that you embedded in the article were not necessary. In any case, as I have requested before, I would rather that you disengaged on matters involving me. So please, back off? Thanks, Elonka 21:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Be fair, it does need quite a bit of work in the prose department. Oh, and "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your input in discussion on use of quotations

Knowing of your consistent concern about copyvio, plagiarism, close paraphrasing, etc., I wonder if you would consider weighing in at Talk:Charles L. Thompson, specifically at "Long verbatim quotation removed from article", on the topic of the direct quotations that have been repeatedly inserted in the article by another user.

For what it's worth, I have a list of other pages with similar (related) issues at User:Orlady/List#Excessive use of quotations. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for lighting up your orange bar again today

Back in the days you and I sometimes didn't agree about the way GA was run, but you were right, and changes were made. My view, having arrived at Misplaced Pages later than you, was that GA could offer a reasonable staging post between complete rubbish and what was even then beginning to seem like the Mount Olympus of FA. DYK on the other hand seems to have no plausible role at all. Maybe there's a place for a project that checks new stubs for all the obvious errors, and in particular copyright violations, as once embedded in an article they tend to propagate, as we've all seen. But DYK with its reward culture certainly isn't that project. It would be nice to have an independently certified level beneath GA, but I can't see that ever happening. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You could start a page for "C-class Review" or "B-class Review"...but I do think GA is going at a steady pace so that a good population of articles is getting reviewed there..Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The chances of me doing that are as close to zero as make no difference. I've long been a supporter of GA, and I do what I can at FA. Time for someone else to step up. If DYK isn't even doing basic checks, which it isn't, then it has no place. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some projects use some form of formal peer-group A-Class review, I am mainly thinking of the MilHist project though, effectively peer reviewing it. To me C, B, A, GA, FA seems a much more logical progression than the current C, B, GA, A, FA. I appreciate that B and A are awarded by the projects, their members, and editors in general while GA and FA are peer reviewed, but from recent conversations it seems that some projects do not conform to B class with any modicum of sense.

One article had been classed as B, I reduced it for the Robotics project as it was in dire shape and was clearly at C or even Start level but, when I approached the other interested project, they told me to eff off and mind my own business! They left it at B and even recently, six months later I was told to go f myself again lol. Maybe something between B and GA or GA and FA is the right way to go.

Perhaps having cross-project assessments would be a good idea, where someone from each/most of the interested projects off the article talk page is to be involved? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the need is greater earlier on in an article's development as a good GA review can often shove an article into near-FA territory. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. The gap between GA and FA has been (in general) closing, whereas the gap between them and the rest has been widening. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's worth an RfC really, and let folks comment, I guess in the meantime we can recommend Peer Review (plus duck in from time to time to offer suggestions....) (groan) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, several editors, including Hassocks and ThelmaDatter and Mjroots in particular produce DYKs which can immediately be taken to GA or have already been promoted before they hit the page. Similarly I have a fair few articles which I DYKd and when I decided to develop to GA required only minor edits. So in that respect the gap between DYK and GA is much less than that between GA and FA. But those are few and far between and the average DYK needs a lot of work before reaching GA. You say "DYK on the other hand seems to have no plausible role at all". I disagree. DYK should really be the first step between stub and GA, it has a very clear role to me as an initial step to get articles sourced and beyond stub class. The problem is that many play ed it as a game so would produce the bare minimum, often with plagiarism and bad sources and not bother to take it further. This why I think we should a] Raise the level of DYK to GA b] Offer a reward scheme at the same time to give editors an incentive to produce more GA quality articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what benefit they are hoping to get from DYK in the cases where they are submitting an article on (or over) the cusp of GA. Yomangani 10:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Let me make myself clear: In theory, I love DYK. I honestly love the idea of it. Everybody and their grandmother loves trivia bits, so why shouldn't we offer them some (not inside articles, thank you!!!!). At the very least, DYK is a place for the trivia to be corralled, But it could be much, much more. It is attractive. It is appealing. I love the idea of what it could be: a place for newcomers to start; a place below GA and above typing "JustIn is GAY lulz!" on random articles. I love that it could be an incentive to create or expand articles. In every possible way, from every angle, in every imaginable corner of its existence, I love the IDEA of it. But the implementation seems to suck oil rags. I have personally seen people promoting their own crap (and once again, I lost one or two !votes on my RfA because I pointed it out). So... don't kill it. Fix it. Now. Why doesn't DYK develop a synergistic relationship with Misplaced Pages:Ambassadors? I emailed seven or eight folks about this, but only two people who know me personally replied so far. I think I was too damned blunt again. Sigh.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured writer

Hello Sandy. I am wondering if you can write a Feature for WikiProject Video games' Newsletter? We would like to get someone with an outside perspective to write about their area of expertise and what VG project members should consider when navigating the process. GamerPro64 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be the right person to do that, and am too busy at any rate (in the midst of a move and construction). Perhaps a TPS will suggest someone who can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Killebrew

Hey. Just checking to see how looking over this is coming along. I know you're really busy especially with the whole DYK debacle right now, so I can try searching for another prose reviewer if necessary if you're not sure you can get to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have done it, Wizardman, and I'm sorry to have misspent so much time at the hopeless DYK instead of helping to improve a worthy article. I will try, but no promises ... very busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WT:DYK#Admins moving hooks from prep to queue: should they have to do this?

Since you are I think the main editor who wanted this, you may want to comment at WT:DYK#Admins moving hooks from prep to queue: should they have to do this? before too long. I asked for feedback there and a couple other editors have presented some good reasons not to do it, so unless there is more feedback there that changes my mind I might disable it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the latest summaries there, and appreciate all that you've done, but I think DYK is hopeless. QPQ reviewing has not been eliminated, no one is accountable (still), and a useless template has been added that will amount to garbage in/garbage out. Nothing beyond your attempts has been done to address the issues. I don't plan to spend what limited time I have this week banging my head against that wall any longer. In contrast to last October, I think there's a whole ton of DONTGIVEAFUCKISM surrounding copyvio these days, so let DYK maintain its place in the status quo, at least until the next time I have a chance to peek in, which won't be for a while now. I appreciate all that you've done, but no, experienced editors should not have to dig through diffs on multiple pages to figure out who is accountable-- on each FAC page, it's right there, plain and clear, for any novice. The lack of accountability is part of what feeds the problem (but by no means the only problem). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

Did you know... that with Mitt Romney's square jaw, handsome face, white teeth, and full head of dark hair graying slightly at the temples, he looks Presidential? MastCell  03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK that Ferrylodge agreed with MastCell today?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Schoolboy crushes and schoolgirl gushiness-- I can respond to two threads at once !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I give up ...

... on DYK. On some level I agree with Yomangani, but changes are needed. Stupidly I thought, in my Pollyanna fashion, I could offer to help. Obviously not. I'm quickly coming around to the view you and Malleus have. It's a pity though, because I do think it has the potential of being a training ground for creating and incubating articles, but obviously that's not really what's happening over there. Just thought I'd let you know. It's a huge time sink too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a dump, and it will always be a dump. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Canary in a coalmine. Last time we had a DYK plagiarism discussion, it was with experienced, knowledgeable, well-informed editors. It's the same problem as everywhere else: Misplaced Pages has become a kiddie playground. Hence, full circle-- DYK feeds RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is even more embedded than that. Take my discussion with Casliber over this abortion for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why they protect it so desperately and ignore the substantive issues. I'm having more problems with another harassing sock, and become more and more discouraged daily. I can't get to actual writing which is the only thing that really brings me joy here, and the writing I've beem doing sucks, so am on a downward spiral. It's very depressing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK archiving

Please read WT:DYK#Record of promotion from prep to queue for a description of what the DYK archiving system is going to be. I have shown you links to this several times, but I feel like you keep asking questions about archiving that I already answered there.

Also, please be aware that DYK is still in the middle of a transition from the old nomination system to the new nomination system, and the archiving I have set up only applies to the new system, as I explained here in a comment that apparently you didn't notice. It's easy to tell which are old nominations and which are new ones, as old nominations are written directly on T:TDYK and new ones are in subpages transcluded on T:TDYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you've already answered, but I can't keep up with that page, and checking diffs on that page where hooks are developed is a royal pain. I can't find subpages, and that page has ALWAYS been a nightmare and a mess to me. When you see a diff to a certain nom, you can't even go to that nom in a TOC, since they are by date. If I thought anything about DYK was intelligible, I wouldn't be asking so many repetitive annoying questions. The only question is, will there be an archive of all noms, and where will it be? I do appreciate your improvements, but the morass of pages and preps and queues at DYK are just an unnecessary complication-- I'm told it wasn't always that way, and hope it will someday be simplified, as it seems intended to obfuscate responsibility by design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oopsie, never mind, I see The Adorable One quite simply answered my question over at DYK (it takes a while to trawl through that page for the good stuff :). Besos :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you ask a question on a page, you can check back later to see if your question was answered. If you can't keep up with your own questions, then my answers to them won't do much good.

Some of that is due to the volume on the page, some is because I'm still moving and busy, and some is because those pages are Just Too Hard to Understand. But your point is correct, and I'll try harder to understand what I think is an awful system before asking more questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the TOC issue, the decision not to show level-4 headers (individual noms) in the TOC was intentional. There are usually over 200 noms on that page and having such a large TOC would be a pain; furthermore, it's usually not necessary because if you want to look at the discussion for "Some article" you can just search the page (Ctrl+F) for "Some article". If you really want every nom to appear in the TOC, you can view Template talk:Did you know/Full TOC instead of T:TDYK.

I do use ctrl-f, but negotiating all of those pages is just awful. Why four queues? Why prep? Why the whole complicated system? It's so awful that my brain probably shuts off when confronted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As for whether there will be "an archive of all noms": WT:DYK#Record of promotion from prep to queue. Every day will be archived when it's done; these daily archives can be organized in a bigger archive. This is exactly what is done with monthly archives at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log.

Will that be done, then? I'm not following if you're saying it is or isn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It will be done when there is something to archive. Currently all the days that will be archived eventually still have active discussions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now created at Template talk:Did you know/Archive. Obviously, it will be all redlinks until there is something to archive. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a dork ... I didn't realize that the only thing holding it up was completed pages to archive :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The "morass of pages and preps and queues" was not designed to obfuscate responsibility. Once upon a time, there were no queues, only the nomination page (T:TDYK) and the template (T:DYK). This meant that, every 6 or 8 hours when the template needed to be updated, some administrator had to sit down and manually do it, and thus it meant that every 6 hours someone had to be online. The queue system was set up so that, instead of that, administrators could "queue up" several updates at once, and thus an update wouldn't be missed if we happened to have a few hours where no one was online. This is similar to TFA, where Raul is able to queue up several days' worth of TFAs at once. The addition of multiple prep pages was so that anyone can help put together updates (the queues are protected pages and can only be edited by admins, but one main principle of DYK is that any editor in good standing can promote an article that has consensus to be promoted). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this could be/probably would be solved if DYK would recognize that they are trying to push through too much volume, and being on the mainpage is not a right, but a responsibility. I understand the multiple queues were to make it easier for admins to keep the mainpapge updated on time, but it has resulted in a system with no accountability. I appreciate all you're doing, but I don't see how we are fixig the long-term problems, which all stem from a lack of accountability. Thanks for helping me understand, but it is irritating as all heck to think of how many poor stubs were created by one editor (and that there are several DYKers like him), enabled by DYK, and that those will never be cleaned up, and are a drain on the time of scores of other productive editors. I think I may have misspent about an hour this morning looking at his latest, and it's just a shame that DYK enabled him and let it go on so long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"They are trying to push through too much volume" is clearly a matter of opinion that some editors share and some don't. The numerous discussions at WT:DYK have made it clear that not everyone agrees what DYK should be and how many or what sort of articles it should be showing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK's fundamental problem is that it doesn't match what's on the tin. It's absolutely nothing to do with enticing readers or potential editors with interesting facts, just about rewarding serial plagiarists. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, where did the idea that all new or expanded gets to be highlighted on the mainpage come from? It's not a right. Perhaps it worked to generate content in a different era, but with declinging editorship and limited reviewers, it's now generating crap stubs and extra work for otherwise productive editors. Has the idea of limiting DYKs to two per month per nominator ever come up? Something needs to be done to slow down the pace, and this checklist business is moving the wrong direction, because all it does is slow down the reviews. Why do we feel we must reward every new or expanded article, to the point of not having enough people for quality control? Can't the DYKers get their fixes with a couple per month? These articles are NOT improved as a result of being on the mainpage, so why are we misspending so many resources ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I believe every new article is entitled to main page exposure. I only said there's disagreement. See WT:DYK#DYK archiving and Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 48#What is DYK for? (long, sry), where I also questioned the entitlement idea.

As for the monthly limit thing, yes, that has been proposed (as Johnbod mentions below; I think it has also been proposed this month). I venture to guess that pretty much anything you can think of has been proposed, and even some things too crazy for any of us to think of (this time someone suggested that WMF pay people--in Amazon vouchers--for DYK reviewing). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And I never said you said it ... I asked where the idea came from :) It has seriously taken hold, and I find it a most curious sense of entitement. Re: JohnBod, I'm wondering if the (old) statistical analysis showed, then, that the bulk of noms come from once-a-month nominators, and if that is still true, and if the Billy Hathorn's are far from the norm? But that would take a new statistical analysis, which should be much easier now that DYK has archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn is far from being the only perennial nominator. There are lots (Alansohn, Cbl62, Nvvchar, Casliber, and Rosiestep are a few I can think of off the top of my head; as you can see, the list of perennial nominators includes both editors known for quality content work and editors not so much known for it). See Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there were also claims that it is already slowing down the rate of nominations. Which I am sure is a good thing, although not everyone agreed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a monthly limit has been proposed - it was one of the ideas last October was it, I think more like 4-6 per month. As I recall, I was one of the few who supported it (but then I only do 1-2 pcm these days). There were also reasonably pursuasive statistical analyses that showed it would not make all that much difference to overall volume. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking nominators to quote from sources

Sandy, I was a bit surprised by the request at the Robin Friday FAC to have the nominator quote the supporting text of the sources for a paragraph selected by a reviewer looking for close paraphrasing. Is this a new process? I haven't run into it before. The nominator is happy with it, so I will go ahead, but I was wondering if this is something that is now requested for cases like this where the source or sources are not easily checkable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a new approach, yes, and one I used myself recently during a GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad "you all" are learning from DYK ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What I've learned from DYK is that the only thing to be learned from DYK is to guard against other similar projects being used as springboards to RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been saying that about DYK since autumn 2010. Let's just see how much of a problem the other projects have, shall we? Checking how much copyvio the other projects are putting on the main page, didn't go so well. Are you feeling more optimistic now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In a word no, completely demotivated. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? I shall have to provide you with more WikiLove-automated tea, then!

... ok perhaps not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware that FAC is "learning from DYK"; what did I miss? I have suggested this before-- IIRC, it was on a Hunter Kahn nomination that used almost all offline sources, but I could be wrong about excactly where I asked for it before. I think when a new nominator is using almost all offline sources, the ItsLassieTime case dictates that we must ask for *something*-- at least try to do our best to avoid an ILT scenario. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. Sometimes an idea has to be suggested over, and over, and over again... before people start listening. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Methinks I'm missing some humor in this thread 'cuz I'm bone tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance is requested

Please help involved parties make the September 11 attacks article the best it can be! It is now at Peer review, here...--MONGO 02:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Robin Friday FAC

Ping, as requested. —Cliftonian 12:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Using related changes to follow transcluded subpages

Not sure if you know this already (and apologies if you do), but I recently pointed out to someone at DYK that it is possible to follow all changes at a particular page even if it is based on transcluded subpages (i.e. you don't need to watchlist the individual pages). For DYK, the link is this one. For WP:FAC, the equivalent link is this one. The same sort of links can be used in other areas of Misplaced Pages as well (related changes for good article nominations is approximately this, somewhat polluted by article talk page discussions because of the location of the GA discussions). I had thought everyone knew this trick, but based on one of the editors at DYK not being familiar with this, I thought it worth mentioning around a bit, also for your talk page watchers if not you. The other links involve using "Special:Prefix index" (or whatever it is called now) to list all subpages, but as DYK is using an archive system that is not needed so much. For completeness, the links are this (for FAC) and this (for DYK). Again, apologies if you knew all this, but hopefully it is of some help to someone (please feel free to mention it elsewhere if it helps). Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Phil Preis

Thank you for listing the possible copyright issue on that article at WP:Copyright problems. Although it was quite hard I have noticed which of the six paragraphs included copyrighted material from the source you mentioned. Apart from re-adding the infoboxes and categories and stuff like that I have restored the first, second and last paragraphs, but left the others in question. The third one I can restore only the unsourced statement, (I don't think we should restore that anyway, as that would be a violation of WP:BLP too) as the other sentences were closely paraphrased facts. The fourth one I have partially restored, as there is a non-copyrighted statement accompanied by a reference. The fifth one is definitely an infringement. I still haven't removed the copyvio template though, and I would like to check to see if it's OK to remove the copyright tag. Minima© (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in with me: I actually have no idea when/how the CCI people decide to remove tags-- I'm unclear when revdel of the article history is needed. I do know that the editor in question is still editing, so the investigation should continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut-and-pasting and ANI

Hi Sandy!

Would you look at the cut-and-pasting at Freedom_in_the_World#Criticism please?

The referencing and quotation do not change the problem that the section is based entirely on Gionnone with no independent thought or writing.

At ANI, I am being criticized for tagging this article, and have been accused by Demiurge1000 and RD232 of being politically motivated.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. RD232 objected to my tagging and accused me of bad-faith, politically motivated tagging on my talk page, earlier.

Sandy is only just due back today, and may well be catching up on other things, but maybe talk page stalkers can help. There also seems to be a copyvio in userspace here, taken wholesale and pretty much uncredited from here inter alia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pretty much uncredited"? The was to allow the observation of the copyright violation, following several complaints that editors lacked access to the journal. I removed it.

Demiurge, please delete the history of the page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A helpful administrator deleted the history.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh??? "to allow the observation of the copyright violation" is not a reason for copyvio in userspace. We don't deal with copyvios (real or imagined) by creating more copyvios. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI and close paraphrasing

I was horrified by a POV/Unreliable/Fringe "history" that used to appear in the Socialist Party of America article. When I discovered that it was a close and extensive paraphrase of a "history" from the Socialist Party USA, I listed parallel passages between the SPUSA "history" and the WP paraphrase.

Further, I rather roughly templated the editor who introduced the material, listed about 13 points where his "history" contradicted the other "source" he cited, I should like to think, in good faith as suggested further reading about related matters.

There is discussion of blocking me for uncivility, etc., at ANI, and I think that your perspective on paraphrasing and citations would be helpful, if you would look at talk page of SPA (I mention your recent statements at RfAs, both on my talk page (humorously) and at the current ANI.)

From my experience, there seems zero concern about falsehoods and lies at ANI, at least among the "regulars". I would not advise anybody to try to clean up articles, based on my experiences.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kiefer; I'm sorry for the delay. I'm under construction and moving as well, and I've been traveling for four days of R&R. I've only had time to skim those discussions, and I see some names there that are "teflon", so I've not waded in. Generally speaking, if you spend your time co-editing with some Misplaced Pages editors, you are going to have a miserable experience, and if you want to enjoy Misplaced Pages, you might want to find areas that such editors don't frequent. The apathy level on Misplaced Pages is so great these days that POV editors can effectively own some areas. On the specific copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns, I am not an expert, I have seen descriptions of plagiarism and copyvio that are far more restrictive than anything I've seen on Misplaced Pages, and when I'm unsure, I leave it to MoonRiddenGirl and others who work in that area. I only tag articles when the violation is so clear that any fool (like me :) can see it. If you're uncertain, you can always check with MRG, as I see has been done in this case. On a final note, your complaints about POV or copyvio-ing editors will be more effective if you remain strictly unemotional, and that brings us back to my first point: some editors on Misplaced Pages have the ability to push anyone's buttons, so stay away from them unless you can be strictly detached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandy, I'd always be grateful for such good advice, and for your time spent on my behalf, but I'm especially grateful today, given your tight schedule. My very best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Sandy--given your concerns over Hathorn's editing (and some of them I share, but I have not looked as closely as you have, I think), isn't an RfC a better way to go than discussion of a topic ban on the DYK talk page? I noted the CCI, which is huge, and the recent discussion on ANI, where the suggestion of an RfC was also made. But the ANI discussion didn't lead to administrative action, and while the CCI leads to lots of editorial action, it takes a lot of time and does not necessarily end with something like what you're thinking of--a block (right?) or even a ban. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh great goddess of image copyrights...

A civil conversation going on about the copyright status of an image here: here and here. I honestly don't know the answer and the other person makes a compelling case, but I wonder what would happen at FA if this arose. Feel free to offer your thoughts, but no obligation to do so. (And the discourse IS very civil) Montanabw 22:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope you enjoyed your break. --John (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

On vacation with open FAC

Sandy, I'm going on vacation for two and a half weeks tomorrow; I have an open FAC. It looks in good shape at the moment, and may promote soon. If not, I will have some access to the web but little access to sources so if new issues are raised it may take me till early September to deal with them. Would it be OK to leave it up in that case? I'll deal with anything raised as soon as I get back. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, Mike; it looks good. I was expecting Karanacs back by the 8th, and am still moving/building, so if she doesn't surface soon, I'll go through. Have a great vacation! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with WP:Goings-on?

Hey Sandy. I just went to add a newly promoted list to the Goings-on page when I discovered that it was never archived last week. The most notable issue is that there are now featured pictures listed from multiple weeks; also, I'm holding off on placing the new FL since it seems like only one week of material is to be there. Not sure who normally does this, but I figured you'd be the best person to mention this to. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed that. Used to GimmeBot moving it, I use that page so rarely for FTs I don't think to look at it weekly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC question

Hey, have an FAC question that's hopefully not too annoying. Would I be able to nominate another article? I ask since I'm sure Killebrew's just waiting for a free day from you or Karanacs for closing it. I've got one ready to go that I've been holding off on adding, hence why I ask (another HoFer who may be Killebrew's opposite). If you'd rather I wait given that there's 50 up right now, that's fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hey Sandy, since you guys are much aware of him, is ItsAlwaysLupus (talk · contribs) a possible sock of ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs)? The behavioral tendencies seems so but I'm not 100% familiar with the master. — Legolas 03:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

I've been slowly moving things along at the ANI thread about the Billy Hathorn concerns. Moonriddengirl posted there, and I replied to her here. I also posted again to Billy Hathorn's talk page here. What I'm hoping is that you will have time to document your concerns on the talk page of the articles you pointed out problems with in the same way that MRG did at Talk:Bill Noël (you edited Phil Preis to address concerns, but Billy Hathorn appears to be re-adding text to that article). Those four locations mentioned on his talk page will then be where Billy Hathorn should respond, to see if he can show whether he understands the problems or not (he is contesting some of the claims made, see his response which I posted in the ANI thread). If he doesn't understand what the problems are, then it will be back to the ANI thread to see what can be done at that point. If you don't have time for this, then Talk:Bill Noël will have to do, but I was hoping for examples of Billy Hathorn discussing concerns on more than one article. Anyway, have a read of what's been said and please comment where necessary if you have time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)